4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova).
5.  On 22 November 2002, at Frankfurt Airport, the German customs authorities discovered a box containing 10,000 LSD pills, addressed to M.U., a Romanian national.
6.  The German and Romanian police authorities decided to track the box in order to identify who was involved in the transportation of the LSD pills.
7.  On 26 November 2002 M.U. and I.M. collected the box from a post office. Later the same day, M.U. and I.M. were arrested.
8.  I.M. decided to take advantage of the statutory leniency provisions. At the police station he declared that the box should have been collected by his girlfriend, O.L., and passed on to the applicant.
9.  Later the same day a group of armed police broke into the applicant’s flat with the intention of searching it. The applicant argued that the policemen did not show a search warrant and no witnesses were present.
The search lasted for four hours. During this time, the applicant was kept immobilised, was not offered water and could not go to the toilet. The applicant alleges that the policemen who broke into her flat kicked her on the head, heels and legs with booted feet and hit her around the face with her passport.
10.  A report was issued at the end of the search that included pictures of the drugs found. Two technical reports were drafted as well concerning the identification of the drugs as LSD.
11.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the public prosecutor’s office, who remanded her in custody. She was informed that she was accused of illegal drug use and drug trafficking, illegal border crossing and falsification of documents.
12.  The applicant was informed that she had the right to a lawyer during the criminal trial.
13.  Later the same day the applicant made two statements.
14.  In the first declaration, signed by her, the applicant stated that during the search operation performed that day the police had found in her flat several bags containing cannabis, a gas pistol and several documents with her picture. She acknowledged that the passport was false and that she had bought it in the Czech Republic for 200 United States dollars (USD).
The applicant went on to state that her boyfriend had asked her to send some LSD to Romania, for which she was supposed to receive USD 1,000. As she was not in Romania at the time, O.L. agreed to receive the LSD drugs for her. The applicant stated that O.L. had already received 500 LSD pills and that she was supposed to sell them and transfer USD 2,000 to the Netherlands.
The applicant further stated that one month after O.L. had received the drugs she had transferred USD 1,000 to the Netherlands.
The applicant also claimed that she occasionally consumed cannabis herself.
15.  The applicant confirmed the above account of events in her second declaration, signed both by the applicant and by her lawyer appointed by the Bar, D.D.
16.  According to the applicant, during interrogation by the public prosecutor she was beaten, threatened with a long prison sentence (up to twenty-five years) and forced to sign self-incriminating declarations, which were written in illegible handwriting by a police officer. Owing to the illegible handwriting and the fact that the applicant’s mother tongue is Russian, she could barely understand the declarations she was forced to sign. During this time she was allegedly not provided with drinking water and could not go to the toilet.
17.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant was interrogated again by the public prosecutor. The barely readable declaration of that date reads that the applicant refused to be assisted by the lawyer appointed by her parents, D. I., “because he was being paid by her boyfriend, who is an international drug dealer”.
18. The applicant claimed that the drug transports were initiated by her boyfriend, whom she helped because she loved him and because she was consuming cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana.
The applicant also expressed the wish to cooperate with the investigating authorities to identify other drug dealers and to benefit from this as mitigating circumstances.
The statement given by the applicant was signed by the applicant and by her two chosen lawyers, U.V. and S.M.
19. Later the same day the applicant was informed, in the presence of her chosen lawyer U.V. that the criminal investigation against her had been completed.
20.  The content of the criminal file was presented to the applicant, who had allegedly only fifteen minutes to view the content of the criminal file against her. The Government did not contest these allegations.
21.  On 11 February 2003 the applicant was handed a copy of the indictment.
22.  On the same occasion the applicant made a new statement to the public prosecutor in which she declared that she stood only partly by the declarations made during the investigation stage.
The applicant stated that she had never sent any package of drugs to O.L. and that during the pre-trial investigation she had signed the declarations because of the pressure placed on her. She claimed that all the declarations were dictated to her.
She stated that she had returned from the Netherlands to Romania on 24 November 2002, and that prior to her return her flat was occupied by G.O.
The applicant claimed that the false passport and student card was used by her in her work as a model and to benefit from various reductions.
She also stated that she was not consuming drugs.
23.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant lodged written observations with the Bucharest Tribunal. The applicant alleged that the prosecution had failed to prove the accusations against her. She highlighted that she was accused of drug trafficking, but the prosecution had failed to prove that she had sent or received the packages at issue. On the contrary, at no point in the criminal investigation was it shown that the applicant was the owner of the packages received on 26 November 2002 by M.U. and I.M. In addition, the Romanian Post confirmed that no other packages had been sent or received by her.
The applicant also highlighted that she was retracting the declarations she had made during the criminal investigation.
24.  By a decision of 14 April 2003 the Bucharest Tribunal convicted the applicant of drug trafficking, bringing illegal drugs into Romania, consumption of illegal drugs, falsification of documents, falsification of identity documents and illegal crossing of borders, and sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment.
The Bucharest Tribunal based the applicant’s conviction on the police and technical reports issued on 26 November 2002 and on the statements made by the applicant, the co-accused and the witnesses.
25.  The Bucharest Tribunal held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the applicant had repeatedly brought drugs into Romania. First, the Bucharest Tribunal showed that the applicant had retracted the declarations she had made during the pre-trial stage.
26.  Second, the Bucharest Tribunal pointed out that the Romanian Post had confirmed that no packages had been sent or received by the applicant prior to the investigation.
27.  On 26 June 2003 the public prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision of 14 April 2003 of the Bucharest Tribunal, alleging that the applicant had acknowledged that she had repeatedly smuggled and consumed drugs in Romania.
The prosecution insisted that the applicant should be found guilty of trafficking in highly dangerous drugs and not of simple drug trafficking.
28.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the 14 April 2003 decision of the Bucharest Tribunal.
29.  The applicant alleged that the Bucharest Tribunal had convicted her of drug trafficking on the basis of declarations she had made at the pre-trial stage which were later retracted. The applicant highlighted that the Bucharest Tribunal had rejected parts of the declarations she had made before the investigating authorities and accepted parts of them without offering a justification for this differentiated treatment.
30.  The applicant claimed that the declarations made by her at the pre‑trial stage should all be rejected, because they had been obtained using illegal methods of investigation. The applicant argued that she and all the other accused had been threatened that if they failed to cooperate they would receive the maximum sentence of twenty-five years. Also, they were incited by the investigating officers to make incriminating statements about their co-accused for the purpose of benefiting from the leniency provisions.
31.  The applicant alleged that it was in this context that she had signed the declarations presented to her. She claimed that it was clear from the wording of the declarations that a Russian-speaking Moldovan citizen could not know or use such expressions or formulations as those used in her pre-trial statements.
32.  The applicant attached particular importance to the report presented by the Romanian Post that she had never sent or received packages, the package under investigation having been sent in fact from Brazil by B.M.
33.  Lastly, the applicant highlighted that on 10 December 2002, when the most important procedural act was performed, namely the presentation of the criminal file, she was forced to sign a declaration refusing the services of the lawyer appointed by her family. As a result, she was not represented on that day.
34.  By a decision of 4 September 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal admitted the appeal lodged by the public prosecutor and the applicant in part and quashed in part the Bucharest Tribunal decision of 14 April 2003.
35.  Upon retrial, the Bucharest Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of trafficking and consumption of highly dangerous drugs, upheld the six‑year sentence applied by the Bucharest Tribunal and ordered the confiscation of 810 United States dollars (USD) which had been found in her flat.
36.  The Bucharest Court of Appeal held that the adduced evidence showed that the applicant had on various occasions sent drugs to Romania which were later sold on the Romanian market.
37.  On 23 November 2003 both the public prosecutor and the applicant lodged further appeals against the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 4 September 2003.
38.  The prosecution argued that the applicant should not benefit from any mitigating circumstances, since she is unemployed and is thus predisposed to criminal activities. The prosecution also requested the expulsion of the applicant because she is not a Romanian citizen.
39.  The applicant complained that she was convicted on the basis of evidence which was obtained under duress, which was not supported by any other evidence and which was retracted during the trial.
The applicant also complained about the confiscation of money ordered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, arguing that it had not been proven that the 810 USD found in her flat had been obtained through illegal operations.
40.  By a final decision of 10 February 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice rejected the applicant’s further appeal as unfounded.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the evidence adduced by the inferior courts had been correctly collected and presented. The High Court of Cassation and Justice attached particular importance to the fact that the applicant acknowledged at the pre-trial stage that she had committed the offences she was accused of.
41.  The High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the amount of 810 USD found in the applicant’s flat had been obtained by selling drugs and that the confiscation ordered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal was legal.
42.  On 23 November 2003 the police performed a search of a bag seized from the applicant’s flat on 26 November 2002. The expert report concluded that the bag had a double bottom that contained 12,500 LSD pills.
43.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant was charged under sections 2 and 3 of Law no. 143/2000 with drug possession and drug trafficking.
44.  By a final decision of 22 February 2005, the Bucharest County Court dismissed the charges against the applicant on res judicata grounds.
45.  On 26 November 2002 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention at Bucharest Police Station, where she remained until 19 December 2002.
46.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention were disputed between the parties.
47.  The applicant alleged that during her pre-trial detention she was placed in a room full of cockroaches and other insects. The applicant also alleged that the cell was overcrowded and there were only ten beds for thirty people, who had to take turns to sleep. Furthermore, there was no hot water, no ventilation, no space for physical exercise and no provision of sanitary supplies. The applicant alleges that the TV and electric light were always on, which made sleeping difficult.
48.  The Government provided a certificate issued on 5 July 2010 by the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, which concluded that the Romanian authorities had respected the applicant’s rights.
49.  The certificate indicates that the applicant was informed about her rights upon arrival, was seen by a doctor and was provided with bed sheets. It also appears from the certificate that the detention facility at the Bucharest Police Station was formed of rooms for four or six people, with separate showers and toilets.
50.  The Government further stated that there were windows in the applicant’s room.
51.  The conditions of the applicant’s transport to and from the courthouse were disputed between the parties.
52.  The applicant alleged that during the second criminal trial she was transported nine times to the Bucharest County Court in an overcrowded patrol van.
53.  The Government submitted two certificates issued by the Ministry of Justice on 2 July 2010 describing the applicant’s transport conditions during her second trial.
54.  The Government alleged in the two certificates that the applicant was transferred to the following prisons during the execution of her sentence:
–  on 19 December 2002 the applicant was transferred from Bucharest Police Station to Rahova prison;
–  on 1 March 2003 the applicant was transferred from Rahova prison to Târgşor prison;
–  on 19 April 2003 the applicant was transferred from Târgşor prison to Rahova prison;
–  on 14 October 2006 the applicant was transferred from Rahova prison to Târgşor prison.
55.  The Government stated that during 2004-2005, the applicant was transported to the Bucharest Tribunal eight times for hearings:
–  on 30 March 2004 the applicant was escorted together with forty-one other detainees in a van with a forty-two-seat capacity;
–  on 25 May 2004 the applicant was escorted together with fifty-seven other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty seats;
–  on 22 June 2004 the applicant was escorted together with fifty-seven other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty seats;
–  on 14 September 2004 the applicant was escorted together with sixty‑four other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty-four seats;
–  on 12 October 2004 the applicant was escorted together with sixty‑four other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty-four seats;
–  on 9 November 2004 the applicant was escorted together with sixty‑five other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty-eight seats;
–  on 7 December 2004 the applicant was escorted together with fifty‑three other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty-three seats;
–  on 1 February 2005 the applicant was escorted together with forty-six other detainees in two vans with a total capacity of sixty-three seats.
56.  The certificates further stated that the applicant was kept in a berth separate from the other detainees she was transported with. This was necessary in order to ensure the separation of the detainees according to their sex.
57.  The Government submitted that the vans used for the transportation of the detainees are of the following types:
–  ROMAN AB-16230, containing seven seats for officers, four berths and thirty-three other seats. The van is 9.5 m long, 2.49 m wide and 3.25 m high;
–  ROMAN AB-16230, containing seven seats for officers, four berths and thirty other seats. The van is 8.71 m long, 2.49 m wide and 3.5 m high;
–  ROMAN RD-10215, containing seven seats for officers, four berths and forty other seats. The van is 8.5 m long, 2.5 m wide and 3.56 m high;
58.  The applicant alleged that, during the hearings held before the national courts, she was placed in a courthouse cell which was dirty, overcrowded and lacked ventilation. Furthermore, there were only two benches for twenty people in the courthouse cell. Owing to this fact, the applicant had to sit on cold concrete for more than four hours. During the waiting time, the applicant did not receive food or water and had limited access to the toilets.
59.  The Government submitted that they had no information on that matter.